Weighted Tanker Competition

The Air Force may be forced to choose the plane that was their second choice in a two-plane competition. The Pentagon's latest RFP seems heavily weighted to Boeing, and Northrop Grumman is again considering if the new rules make it worth their while to continue.

A shame, too. Northrop Grumman was clearly the choice of the Air force in the last competition. Wasn't even close. Now the rules are being re-written to grease the skids for the coronation of Boeing. The same Boeing who screwed up the original tanker competition with scandal. Our men and women in the air and field are paying for this corruption by being made to fly Eisenhower-era refueling tankers.

This has been a drama that won't end happily, easily. Politics, of course, is the gum in the gears.

Here is George Talbot's Wednesday story in the Press-Register:

The Pentagon on Wednesday reopened bidding on a potential $40 billion contract to assemble a new fleet of aerial refueling tankers for the U.S. Air Force.

But in the latest plot twist in a 10-year tanker saga, the Air Force may find only a single contractor willing to bid on one of the richest defense deals in U.S. history.

The Air Force released a Request for Proposals that top officials said was designed to create a robust competition for the 179-plane order, the first in a series of purchases intended to replace its aging fleet of more than 500 KC-135 Stratotankers over the next two decades.

The air tanker fight: A timeline

June 2005: The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. chooses Mobile's Brookley Field for a proposed $600 million aircraft assembly plant.

Sept. 2005: Northrop Grumman Corp. says it will join with EADS in bidding for the Air Force tanker contract, giving the Mobile-based team an American prime contractor.

Jan. 2007: The Air Force releases a Request for Proposals on the tanker contract.

April 2007: Boeing and Northrop submit bids.

Feb. 29, 2008: The Air Force awards a projected $40 billion contract for 179 tankers to Northrop and EADS.

March 10, 2008: Boeing files a protest with the Government Accountability Office.

June 18, 2008: The GAO upholds the Boeing protest, citing "significant errors" in the acquisition process.

Sept. 10, 2008: Defense Secretary Robert Gates cancels the Northrop tanker contract and calls for a "cooling-off period" after concluding the process has become too politicized.

Sept. 25, 2009: The Air Force releases a draft re´ quest for proposals for a second round of competition.

Dec. 2, 2009: Northrop says it will not submit a bid unless the Air Force makes significant changes to the draft RFP.

Wednesday: The Air Force releases a final RFP on the tanker contract.

April: Companies are due to submit bids for the tanker competition, 75 days after release of the final RFP.

August: The Air Force hopes to announce a con´ tract award for new refueling planes, 120 days after receiving companies' final bids.

Boeing Co. and a trans-Atlantic team led by Northrop Grumman Corp. are expected to vie for the coveted deal, which could be a boon to their shareholders, a coup for their political backers and an economic bonanza for the communities that hope to assemble the planes.

That's a lucrative prize at a time when the Pentagon is tightening its budget and slashing major weapons programs. But supporters of Los Angeles-based Northrop, which is proposing to build its tankers in Mobile, said Wednesday that the Air Force's terms may leave the company no choice but to drop its pursuit of the deal.

That would mark a stunning reversal from 2008, when the Air Force's selected Northrop's KC-30 tanker over Boeing's KC-767. The deal was later overturned by Defense Secretary Robert Gates after federal auditors, acting on a protest filed by Boeing, found problems with the way the Air Force made its selection.

In the rematch launched Wednesday, Northrop backers said the Air Force made only cosmetic changes to a draft version of the RFP released to contractors last fall. Northrop sharply criticized that proposal, saying it was so biased toward a smaller, cheaper tanker like Boeing's KC-767 that it made no sense to submit a bid.

Northrop said it needed time to review the new RFP, but Alabama political leaders were quick to condemn it.

"The final RFP discredits the integrity of the entire process," said U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa. "It is an illusion of a fair competition in which the warfighter and the taxpayer lose."

U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Mobile, said a Northrop withdrawal would have broad consequences for taxpayers and the military -- and could leave an "irreparable stain" on a program already marked by scandal.

A 2001 contract to lease tankers from Boeing was scrapped when a congressional investigation found that the company conspired with the Air Force to inflate the value of the $23.5 billion deal.

"It's clear to me that in a selection process of this magnitude, competition is critical," Sessions said. "We know from experience that sole-source bidding leads to less capability, more costs and more fraud."

The RFP was applauded by lawmakers in Washington state and Kansas, where Chicago-based Boeing is proposing to assemble its planes.

U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., said he would not be disappointed by a Northrop withdrawal.

"I'll say, 'Hallelujah,'" said Dicks, who is poised to assume chairmanship of the House committee that oversees the defense budget. "Everyone would like to see competition, but if they didn't, I think we could move the program forward rapidly."

Pentagon leaders defended the RFP as fair to both bidders but said they were prepared to proceed with or without competition.

"We believe that both offers are in a position to win," said Air Force Secretary Michael Donley.

Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn declined to say what the Pentagon would do if it receives only one bid. The companies have 75 days to respond to the RFP, and the Air Force released a timeline projecting a winner-take-all decision by the end of this year.

"We think we've put forward a balanced and fair competition," Lynn told reporters at a Pentagon news conference. "When we get to that point, we'll address that question. ...We are hoping that we don't have to."

Lynn and other senior defense officials repeated their opposition to a proposed compromise in which the Air Force would buy planes from both manufacturers. Supporters argue that a dual buy would break a political stalemate between the two rival teams and create jobs across the country.

"The split buy is still very much a possibility. It's an idea we believe has merits and should certainly be considered," said Mobile Mayor Sam Jones. "By whatever means necessary, we plan to continue to fight As alw